Ex Parte Baker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

10099508 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/099,508 03/15/2002 Barry M. Baker POU901137US1 2834
46369 7590 01/30/2012
HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
5 COLUMBIA CIRCLE
ALBANY, NY 12203
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BARRY M. BAKER, ROBERT O. DRYFOOS,
DANIEL S. GRITTER, COLETTE A. MANONI, SUNIL SHENOI,
GERALD B. STRAIT, YUK S. TAM, and MEI-HUI WANG
____________

Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-16, 21-36, 41, and 43-58.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Despite Appellants erroneously indicating that claims 1-62 are rejected (Br.
7)—a status that the Examiner also erroneously confirms as correct (Ans.
2)—claims 17-20, 37-40, 42, and 59-62 are nonetheless indicated as
cancelled in the Brief’s Claims Appendix. Accord Ans. 3 (omitting these
claims in the rejection).
Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generates a common symbol table used during
debugging computer applications. The common symbol table is accessible
by multiple applications. See generally Spec. ¶ 0004. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of generating a table of debug information, said method
comprising:
obtaining a debug symbol common to a plurality of applications, said
plurality of applications being independent in that no application of the
plurality of applications has a dependency on any other application of the
plurality of applications in which the debug symbol is common thereto; and
including said debug symbol in a common debug symbol table to be
used in debugging at least one application of said plurality of applications,
said common debug symbol table located on one or more computer readable
media accessible by the plurality of applications, and wherein the debug
symbol comprises debugging information used to debug at least one
application of said plurality of applications.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Leask US 6,412,106 B1 June 25, 2002
(filed June 16, 1999)
Swetland US 2004/0015852 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
(filed May 2, 2001)
Plaxton US 6,813,762 B1 Nov. 2, 2004
(filed Feb. 22, 2000)

Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-16, 21-36, 41, and 43-58 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plaxton, Leask, and Swetland. Ans. 3-
10.2

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Plaxton’s system obtains a symbol common
to plural program files (i.e., additional files) that are said to be independent
in that they cannot reference each other. Ans. 3, 10-11. According to the
Examiner, Plaxton discloses every recited feature of representative claim 1
except for (1) debugging information, and (2) the disclosed program files are
applications. The Examiner, however, cites Leask and Swetland as
respectively teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 3-5, 10-19.
Appellants argue that Plaxton not only does not disclose debugging,
but its shared constant pool (CP) merely allows a program unit of an
application to access other program units of the same application. Br. 9-11.
Appellants add that while Leask’s debugger can access a symbol table,
Leask nonetheless fails to disclose a common symbol table as claimed. Br.
12. Appellants also contend that Swetland does not cure these deficiencies
since Swetland’s bundle is not shared, but rather used for a particular
program and, in any event, is not for debugging as claimed. Br. 11-12.
Lastly, Appellants assert that the Examiner’s combination of the references
is improper. Br. 13-14. The issues before us, then, are as follows:

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 30, 2008,
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 3, 2008.
Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

4

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Plaxton, Leask, and Swetland collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(a) obtaining a debug symbol common to plural applications, the
applications being independent in that no application is dependent on any
other application in which the debug symbol is common thereto, and
(b) including the debug symbol in a common debug symbol table
accessible by the applications?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Plaxton’s system processes program files by formatting program
file information for storage in permanent device memory without requiring
storage in dynamic memory. A mapping mechanism (e.g., a link file) allows
references to previously-processed files via a shared CP. Original
preprocessing typically occurs during manufacture, and stores programming
for basic device functionality. Later user-specific functions are added by
using the mapping mechanism and preprocessing just the use-specific code.
Multiple program file units can be added to the application. Plaxton,
Abstract; col. 6, l. 59 – col. 7, l. 29; Figs. 4-5.
2. Preprocessor 52 processes initial program files 8 to produce
formatted program file information 54 (“Program File Unit 0”) having (1)
Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

5
formatted program files, and (2) a shared CP or symbol table (“Shared CP
0”). Each formatted program file includes at least one reference to the
shared CP. Link file 56 (“Link File 0”) is the mapping mechanism
associated with program files 8. Plaxton, col. 3, ll. 23-25; col. 7, ll. 30-61;
Figs. 4-5.
3. Additional files 42 are processed to add application-specific
program files by generating program file unit 62 (“Program File Unit 1”)
with an associated shared CP (“Shared CP 1”) that refers to Shared CP 0.
Although the preprocessor can generate an associated link file 64 (“Link File
1”), it is optional; no link files are generated for further additional program
files. Without Link File 1 or some other mapping mechanism, subsequent
additional files cannot reference additional files 42. Plaxton, col. 8, ll. 8-22;
Figs. 4-5.
4. A debugger can obtain information it needs to satisfy user requests
by accessing a symbol table and looking up a variable’s address and type.
Leask, col. 3, ll. 24-37.
5. Class files used in a particular application program or applet are
combined to form a unified programming object or “bundle” 1200 with
shared CP 1202. Swetland, ¶ 0080; Fig. 10.
6. Entries in a bundle’s CP may refer to entries in a shared system
bundle’s CP to allow providing a system bundle with a core class library and
each application in its own bundle so that the applications can be easily
added or removed. Swetland, ¶ 0098.

Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

6
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
part, (1) obtaining a debug symbol common to plural independent
applications, and (2) including the debug symbol in a common debug
symbol table accessible by the applications.
First, we see no error in the Examiner’s position that subsequently-
added program files in Plaxton are independent since they cannot reference
each other (Ans. 10-11, 13-14)—a finding reasonably supported by
Plaxton’s optionally omitting Link File 1 which functions as the additional
files’ mapping mechanism. FF 3. Even if these files are associated with the
same application, as Appellants contend (Br. 9-11), the Examiner’s position
is not based solely on Plaxton, but also relies on Swetland to show that
sharing Plaxton’s CP or symbol table (i.e., “Shared CP 0”) at a “system”
level among independent applications would have been obvious. Ans. 12-
13; FF 2-3. We see no error in this position, for Swetland at least suggests
that multiple distinct applications can be associated with a particular bundle,
and that entries in such a bundle’s CP can refer to a shared system bundle’s
CP. FF 6. Based on the references’ collective teachings, we see no reason
why skilled artisans could not apply Plaxton’s technique to enable different
applications to access a common symbol table as the Examiner proposes in
lieu of such access among different components of a single application.
Such an enhancement merely predictably uses prior art elements according
to their established functions—an obvious improvement. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

7
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Leask
merely to show that symbol tables are commonly used in debugging
applications. Ans. 4, 15, 17-18; FF 4. We see no reason why the
Plaxton/Swetland system could not be used for debugging as the Examiner
indicates since such an application merely predictably uses prior art
elements according to their established functions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
As such, we find the cited prior art collectively at least suggests (1)
obtaining a debug symbol common to plural independent applications, and
(2) including a debug symbol in a common debug symbol table as claimed.
We also find the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Plaxton,
Leask, and Swetland (Ans. 4, 12-19) supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-16, 21-36, 41, and 43-58 not separately
argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-16, 21-36, 41, and 43-
58 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16, 21-36, 41, and 43-58
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2009-005259
Application 10/099,508

8

AFFIRMED

babc